Dr. Riley, in your letter dated December 2,2004 you made a request for the
PTS committee to develop distribution plans for the 2005-07 pay plan and market
salary adjustments. In your request you asked the committee to pay
particular attention to the guidelines laid out in the letter from George
Brooks, dated November 17th, 2004.

According to the letter from George Brooks, our plan needs to clearly
specify:

1. In the event the approved pay plan is greater
than two percent, indicate how the chancellor would use up to 10% of the total
pay plan as a discretionary fund to meet special needs such as market shortfalls
by faculty rank, and/or academic staff internal/external pay problems, or to
reward faculty and academic staff innovative and/or collaborative program
delivery, and/or exceptional performance in support of institution goals, and/or
to correct gender pay equities in the faculty and academic staff.

2. In the event the approved pay plan is greater
than two percent, indicate what percentage of the general pay plan will be
distributed on the basis of merit/market and what percentage will be distributed
on the basis of solid performance.

3. In the event market funds are provided in the
biennial budget, indicate how those funds will be “distributed to correct market
needs and salary needs with due regard to establishing average salaries at the
peer group median.”

The Regents, in revised resolution I.2.a.(2), set out several basic
principles for their compensation requests for 2005-2007 (See Attached).
They highlight an average salary shortfall for faculty relative to our peers of
6.3 percent. They prefer that the shortfall be addressed through 2
distinct processes. The first part is a request for a 3 percent increase
in salary to come from the biennial budget process. The second request is
for a 2 percent salary increase through the normal pay plan process. The
resolution also notes, should the budget request fail to reach 3 percent then
the pay plan request would be adjusted upward. Should the pay plan be 2
percent or less then it will be distributed across the board to solid
performers, but if it is more than 2 percent it will be distributed according to
recommendations from the campuses. These recommendations need to be
consistent with Regent Resolution 8639, which laid down guidelines for the
2003-2005 pay plan distribution.

We believe the enclosed plan meets these criteria, achieves the objectives
laid down by the Regents, and continues to put UW - La Crosse on the path
towards reducing existing market inequities.

However, given the uncertainty of the final salary plan, and more
importantly the source of the funds, it is very difficult to make
recommendations that are not overly complicated given the myriad of
contingencies. Therefore, rather than establish recommendations which might not
be consistent with the actual stipulations of a final plan we have outlined a
set of guidelines which will make it possible for us to recommend a specific pay
plan once the final percentages, categories of percentages, and other
contingencies are known.

We make the following proposal for the approval of the Faculty Senate for
the University of Wisconsin La Crosse for the 2005-2007 biennium.

Proposal: Beginning with the 3 percent proposed salary increase funded
through the biennial budget process. We believe that the money should be
distributed as follows: 2/3 goes to solid performance and 1/3 goes to merit.

Rationale: In the recent past UW- La Crosse has worked to mitigate
the problem of inequity (or compression) across ranks. The enclosed data
suggests we have been fairly successful in our approach. Appendix A
highlights the 3 previous distribution plans, noting the dramatic improvement in
promotion pay increases and other past changes. We find that out of all the
comprehensive institutions our Full professors are the least behind their peer
group median.

UW-La Crosse diverted a large portion of its pay package from the 2000 pay
plan and the 2001 – 2003 pay plan to address salary compression across the
ranks. In particular, in the 2001-2003 pay plan, 10% of the pay package
was used to address compression across ranks. (This was 10% in addition to
the Chancellor’s discretionary fund.) Of this money, 2/3 was given to Full
Professors and 1/3 to Associates. In addition, promotion adjustments for
faculty ranks were also increased by 2/3 of the compression adjustments. Based
on the limited data we have, 2003-2004 UW Averages and the Median of Peer Group
Averages, our faculty members are between 3% and 8% below their respective peer
groups. The farthest behind appear from this data to be the
Associate Professors, but we could not increase their salaries at a higher level
than the Full Professors without risking some Associate Professor’s salaries
surpassing the salaries of Full Professors in the same disciplines.

Much of the credit for the success in addressing this problem at UW – L
should be attributed to the Chancellor. The Chancellor committed a large
portion of “salary savings” and the discretionary 10% to addressing the problem
of compression. It is only through putting this money back into the salary
pool that we are able slow the salary disparities we face when compared to our
peer group. The Chancellor should also be commended for continuing to fund
the larger promotion increases, which are currently scheduled to grow at the
same rate as the pay plan, as they are also responsible for preventing the
process of compression from returning.

Proposal: Concerning the 2% pay plan request: If the plan is 2 percent or
less, we agree with the regents that it should be distributed to solid
performers. If it is more than 2% we believe that it should be distributed
as follows: 2/3 go to solid performance and 1/3 goes to merit.

Rationale: We feel this proposal is justified for the same reasons
put forth above and alsobecause of the recent 2003-2005 pay plan.
In those years faculty had no pay raise two years ago and only a 1% pay raise
given last year, which did not cover the additional increase in the cost
of living. Thus we believe it is more important to distribute most of any salary
increase based on solid performance of the faculty.

Proposal: In the event the approved pay plan exceeds 2% the PTS
committee will determine if there is some justification for distributing some
percentage to the Chancellor’s fund.

Rationale: We would request that none of the pay plan go to the
Chancellor’s discretionary fund at this time, since we do not know if some of
the market salary adjustment funds will be directed to go to the Chancellor’s
fund. If this is not the case, we will reevaluate this issue after we have
more information. In the event the Chancellor has control over any portion
of the pay plan, we recommended that it be used to address individual cases
where faculty salaries are considerably low in relation to others in similar
fields in this institution. Department Chairs and Deans would need to
identify such individuals and work with the Chancellor to correct these
shortfalls as much as is possible with funds available. While the PTS
committee realizes there are a few isolated cases where faculty suffer from one
of the many types of salary inequity, we feel the best way to deal with this is
not through the rather blunt instrument of the pay plan distribution
recommendations that we are charged with developing. We would however
encourage the Chancellor, in consultation with the Deans and Department Chairs,
to continue to use “salary savings” to address individual cases of market
shortfalls by faculty rank, or to reward faculty involved in innovative and/or
collaborative program delivery, and/or exceptional performance in support of
institution goals, and/or to correct gender pay equities in the faculty.
Using salary savings helps to further increase the overall salary pool at UWL
and is one of the main reasons why we are better off than many of our sister
institutions.

Part of the difficulty with addressing inequities other than those between rank
is the absence of good data to measure the problem. We request that the
appropriate administrative units gather data to determine the size of the
existing market inequities.
The PTS committee is willing to review this proposal, next year, once we have an
accurate accounting of the size of the salary package, sources, distribution
constraints, and market inequities.

Respectfully Submitted,

Promotion, Tenure and Salary Committee

UW-La Crosse

Appendix A: Pay Plan History

Faculty SenateVol. 37, No. 9
January 30, 2003

V. Pay plan
guidelines for next biennium.Bruce Osterby, Chair of the Promotion, Tenure & Salary Committee, presented
the recommendation to adopt a pay distribution plan for 2003-04, which
distributes the pool based on two-thirds for solid performance and one-third for
merit/market awards.

Osterby reminded Senators that
this recommendation constitutes a change from the last three pay plans, which
have used the Chancellor’s discretionary portion and part of the faculty portion
to address compression. The PTS Committee believes the faculty compression
issue has

largely been corrected.
In an attempt to address future compression issues, it is understood that a base
for promotion adjustments has been established. Thus for the 2003-04 pay
plan the following promotion adjustments would be made:

35th Faculty Senate

Vol. 35, No. 8

February 15, 2001

IV.
Proposal from the PTS Committee on the Distribution of the 2001-03 Salary
Package.

The senate continued
discussion of the following PTS Committee recommendations on salary compression
issues:

Proposed distribution of
the 2001-2003 pay package

It is hereby proposed that:

1) The salary adjustment
associated with promotion from assistant to associate professor should be raised
to $3,000, and the salary adjustment for promotion from associate to full
professor should be raised to $5,000. Both adjustment increases would be
effective immediately, i.e. for persons promoted in 2001. Individuals
receiving these pay increases would be ineligible for compression adjustments
during the 2001-2003 biennium.

Rationale:
If one wishes to separate faculty salaries by rank the best solution is to make
the pay increases at promotion substantial. The long-term effect of item 1
is to eliminate compression across ranks by institutionalizing salary separation
from those at lower rank at the time of promotion. Also, making
individuals receiving the increased promotion salary adjustments ineligible for
compression adjustments will prevent newly promoted individuals from surpassing
the salaries of those individuals who have been at that rank for one or more
years. Another advantage is that a large increase in pay at the time of
promotion will be magnified in subsequent pay packages approved by the state
(e.g. a 4% increase on a $50,000 salary versus a 4% increase on a $55,000
salary, compounded). The sooner pay adjustments at promotion are
increased, the sooner the problem of compression across ranks will be addressed.
Item 1 is key to the entire proposal.

2) The $3000 and $5000
amounts should be increased annually by the same percentage as the increase in
the faculty pay package.

Rationale:
In order to keep the pay increases at promotion substantial and prevent future
compression problems, these pay increases must keep pace with the growth in
faculty salaries as much as possible.

3) The university
administration should be encouraged to contribute $131,000 of University-wide
resources toward the elimination of compression across ranks each year of the
next biennium.

Rationale:
The faculty senate has already approved $131,000 of institutional funds to
address compression, the committee concurs with the amount.

4) The chancellor should be
encouraged to dedicate his/her discretionary portion of the salary package (10%)
to addressing compression across ranks.

Rationale: As the pay
plan distribution guidelines distributed by the state indicate, the chancellor
has discretion over 10% of the pay package. As salary compression across
ranks has been ranked as a high priority, the chancellor should be encouraged to
use those discretionary funds to address compression.

5) If the pay increase is
3.5% or greater, then 10% of the increase in pay package dollars (total faculty
salary - base faculty salary) should be used to address compression across
ranks. (The 10% indicated herein is in addition to the chancellor's
discretionary 10%.) If the pay increase is less than 3.5%, funds to
address compression should come only from items 3 and 4 above, and no additional
resources should be taken from the faculty pay package.

Rationale:
The proposal attempts to minimize the redistribution of pay plan money among
faculty. The faculty do not have direct control over the use of
institutional funds to address compression, nor do they control the chancellor's
discretionary 10% of the pay package. However, without such funds we
cannot hope to address compression in a reasonable timeframe. The 4.2% pay
increase requested by System will likely be reduced by the legislature (has the
legislature ever given System what was requested?). 3.5% was used as a
cutoff for the use of faculty-controlled money because the inflation rate is
projected at 2.8%. If a 3.5% pay increase is enacted, 0.7% of the pay
package dollars (Chancellor's 10% = 0.35% and faculty-committed 10% = 0.35%,
total is 0.7%) would be used to address compression, leaving a 2.8% pay increase
for faculty (solid performance plus merit). The 2.8% pay increase would at
least keep pace with inflation, and not penalize any particular segment of the
faculty population too greatly. A lesser pay package (less than 3.5%)
would drive the possible pay increase below the projected inflation rate, and to
unacceptably low levels in the committee's opinion. Projected dollar
amounts under various pay plans are shown in Appendix 2.

6)
Available funds to address compression should be allocated to faculty at the
ranks of Associate Professor and Professor in a 25% to 75% ratio.
Compression adjustments would be made to all eligible faculty in those ranks on
an equal dollar basis.

Rationale:
According to the CUPA and previous UW System data, full professors are farther
behind their peers than are associate professors, while assistant professors are
slightly ahead of their peers. Compression adjustments at this level will
offset gains in pay adjustments at promotion and maintain a substantial salary
differential among the three ranks. The compression adjustments should
also keep UW-L faculty (regardless of rank) near the top of the UW cluster in
salary, and increase the relative position of UW-L faculty in comparison to
their peer institutions nationwide.

Effects of the plan:

Let’s assume for the moment
that the legislature grants a 3.5% pay increase for each year of the next
biennium (see attached sheet). Full professors would receive a compression
adjustment of $1,757 and associate professors would receive a compression
adjustment of $633. Two years of such payments, coupled with the 2000-2001
compression adjustments, would accomplish four goals:

1) The salary differential
between UW-L faculty and their CUPA peers would be substantially reduced.
2) The salary shortfall as estimated by UW System would be eliminated ($4,400
for the full professors and $1,800 shortfall for the associates).
3) Faculty who have been at the rank of full or associate professor prior to the
2000-2001 fiscal year would not be surpassed in salary by colleagues promoted
under this plan.
4) Salaries of UW-L faculty would remain at or near the top of the salaries of
the UW System comprehensives, most of whom have not begun to address the problem
of compression.

If implemented, the plan would
cost an incoming assistant professor a total of $26, 217 over the course of a
30-year career. If that same assistant professor is promoted in a timely
fashion, she/he stands to gain $243,951 over the same period from the increased
promotion adjustments to base pay.

M/S each year of the biennium,
all faculty will receive any compression adjustments based on their rank in the
academic year just completed. Promotion adjustments will be the sum of the
previous year’s promotion adjustment* plus 2/3rds of any compression adjustment
for the rank the faculty member will be entering (up to a maximum of $3000 for
Associate Professors and $500 for Full Professors). *The effective
promotion adjustment to full professor for 1999-2000 was $2910.

Senator Kelly's motion does
not address the leapfrog issue for faculty who have been promoted previously.
It will however, deal with leapfrog issues in the future.

In response to a question
raised earlier, Chair Bange confirmed that the national CUPA data, used to
compare salary compression issues, does indeed contain Ph.D. institutions
including Berkley and UCLA, and may explain why salaries at UW-L have been
below the peer group median. The PTS Committee examined and considered
using these data but ultimately used the regional peer group data used by
UW-System for comparison in the past.

Senator Monte indicated he
would like to re-address the 25% to 75% ratio raised in recommendation #6.

M/S/P to amend recommendation
#6 to read: Available funds to address compression should be allocated to
faculty at the ranks of Associate Professor and professor in a 33-1/3 percent to
66-2/3 percent. (show of hands: 11-yes, 4-no, 4-abstain)

Senator Le Docq offered the
following amendment to recommendation #5:

M/S to amend recommendation #5
to read: If the pay increase is 3.5% or greater, then 15% of the increase
in pay… ranks.

Mike Abler, Chair of the PTS
Committee, explained that the committee chose 10% because it matched the
Chancellor's discretionary 10%, which must be applied to faculty salary issues.
Dr. Bange reminded senators that this is the third year that the Chancellor has
had the discretionary 10%. The first year Chancellor Kuipers did not do
anything with it, however, last year the entire 10% went toward compression.
Dr. Abler stated that from an institutional standpoint we wish to solve
compression problems as quickly as possible, but that we don’t want to reduce
the salary increase for assistant professors any more than necessary.

M/S/F to amend recommendation
#5 to read: If the pay increase is 1.5% or greater, then… ranks.
(show of hands: 7-yes, 8-no, 4-abstain)

M/S/P to amend recommendation
#5 to read: If the pay increase if 2.5% or greater, then 10% of the
increase in pay package dollars… ranks. (show of hands: 13-yes, 3-no,
3-abstain)

The entire proposed
distribution of the 2001-2003 pay package, as amended, was APPROVED. (show
of hands: 15-yes, 2-no, 2-abstain)

34th Faculty Senate

Vol. 34, No. 11

February 242000

IV. Proposal
from the PTS Committee to Address Salary Compression Between Ranks.

Chair Bange informed the
senators that he met with Provost/Vice Chancellor Hastad and Chief Financial
Officer Lostetter to try to clarify the administration's willingness to commit
the $125,000 in institutional funds to the salary compression plan.

Provost Hastad shared with the
Senate that since the PTS Committee was given their charge this past fall, Barry
Clark has been working closely with John Tillman in the Provost's office. John
has in turn kept the Provost informed. In addition, Barry talked with the Deans
and the Provost. The Provost told the Senate that the administration is willing
to commit the $125,000 of institutional funds contingent on the faculty meeting
their responsibility to follow through with the System expectation that they use
part of the pay plan to address compression. He also indicated that the faculty
need to do this in a significant way. He stated that the current 25% of the pay
plan and $125,000 of institutional funds is reasonable. The amount of
institutional funds has already been raised once during the negotiating process
and it is unrealistic to look beyond this amount.

Barry Clark then made a
statement to the Senate. He indicated that the concerns about the PTS proposal
voiced at the last Senate meeting fell into three categories. He addressed each
of these categories in turn.

1. The plan puts an unfair
burden on junior faculty.
Barry indicated that the error in this argument comes from viewing the 3 parts
of the proposal (using a portion of the pay plan increase, use of salary savings
and the increased promotion raises) as independent. They are linked. If we
minimize the portion of the pay plan used, we risk lowering the number of
dollars we can use from salary savings. In addition, by increasing the promotion
raises the full professors give up additional dollars that could be used to
address compression. The junior faculty in turn help the full professors by
giving up a portion of the pay plan increase.

2. The plan puts an unfair
burden on the College of CLS.
As Ron Lostetter pointed out at the last meeting of the Senate, CLS has
approximately 37% of the full professors and generates approximately 36% of the
salary savings. In fact, no college would be subsidizing other colleges since
other funds would be used besides salary savings.

3. The plan fails to
address other inequities besides those across the ranks.
The compression across the ranks is objectively measurable and an immediate
problem. Current efforts for addressing other salary inequities still exist.
Another concern was that the plan will create new compression problems in two
ways. The first involves the plan to give the adjustments in equal dollar
amounts across the board. This approach leaves each faculty member in the same
relative position as before, and so does not negate the effect of merit raises.
The alternative is to create criteria to access the worthiness of each full
professor. Secondly, the increase in the promotion bonuses creates
"leapfrogging" between the newly promoted and those already in rank. Barry
indicated that this argument has merit.

Barry indicated that the PTS
Committee had a "cyber meeting" concerning this issue. There was broad consensus
in the committee, but not unanimous support, for the following three changes in
the proposal.
i) The compression pool be divided - 80% for full professors, 20%
for associates.
ii) The salary adjustments for promotion be increased from the current
level each year by 2/3 of the compression adjustment going to each rank until
these bonuses reach the level of $3000 for associate and $5000 for full.
iii) The newly promoted remain eligible for all future compression
adjustments.

The floor was then opened up
for questions/comments. The first question concerned the difference between
Barry's suggested changes and the changes suggested in a possible amendment
written by Chair Bange that was previously distributed to the senators. It was
noted that the two differences were that Chair Bange's proposal splits the
compression pool 77% for full professors and 23% for associates, and the Chair's
proposal would be a one year plan rather than a three year plan.

Chair Bange indicated that no
one knows what the exact numbers will be beyond this biennium in order to run
simulations. The Chair also indicated that there are two issues being discussed.
One is the distribution of the salary package in the 2nd year of this biennium.
This issue must be dealt with by March 1st. The second issue is to deal with the
compression issue in the long term. Discussion and work on this issue does not
have to be done by March 1st. It was mentioned that limiting the current
plan to one year allows for further debate, and the plan can always be
implemented again next year. It was suggested that compensation may be a better
measure than just salary to determine compression since retirement benefits are
better here than many other places.

M/S to support the
PTS Committee Recommendations on Salary Compression Issues.

M/S to amend the proposal as
follows:

1. That 25% of only the
FY01 salary package be used to address compression.
2. That the faculty recommend that $125,000 of University-wide resources
be used to
address compression.
3. That the compression pool created by these two sources be allocated
between the two
upper ranks on a 23% to 77% ratio.
4. That the salary adjustment for promotion to the ranks of Associate
Professor and Full
Professor by increased by 2/3 of the average
compression increases that are awarded
to faculty currently in those ranks.

The discussion on the
amendment included the following issues.

Several senators supported the change to a one-year proposal. It was indicated
that the plan will need to be revisited every year or at least every
biennium since we need to know the pay plan. It is very possible that
inflation could return to 5-6% while we only receive a 3% raise. Making this
a one-year plan gives the broader community a chance to look at the plan. If
it is a good one, it will withstand the scrutiny.

On the other side of
this issue, it was pointed out that making this only a one-year plan shows
less of a commitment by the faculty.

The Provost
mentioned that there are too many unknowns to really plan three years ahead.
We do not know whether we will have the flexibility to use dollars from the
next pay plan to address compression. He indicated that no matter what the
Senate decides, the plan will be revisited next year. The Senate should not
tie the hands of next year's Senate.

There was a concern that money will be taken from the junior faculty to pay
full professors who may not be rated meritorious.

It was indicated
that until the dollars show up in our checks, the pay plan dollars don't
belong to us, they belong to the State of Wisconsin and they have suggested
using up to 1/3 of the package to address compression. We should demonstrate
that we are serious about the issue by increasing the percentage of the pay
plan used from 25% to 33%. The hope would be that we would have a better
chance of continuing to receive additional resources.

M/S/F (by show of hands) To
amend the amendment by increasing the percentage of the pay plan used from 25%
to 33%.

M/S/P (by roll call vote
17/0/1) to approve the main motion to amend.

Discussion then continued on
the main motion as amended.

M/ to amend
the motion to say that in order to receive a salary compression adjustment, the
faculty member must have received a merit ranking above the department average
for four of the last five years.

It was noted that in many
department's merit schemes, nearly everyone is put in the same category with
perhaps two put into a higher category. This would mean that only two people in
that department would receive a compression adjustment.

The motion died for lack of a
second.

M/S/F (by show of hands) to
amend number 4 in the main proposal to read as follows:

4. In any given years,
only those ranks with percentage salary shortfalls greater than the UW-L
total salary shortfall (percentage difference between UW-L total salary base
and corresponding CUPA salary base) shall receive adjustment.
Within the ranks receiving adjustments, only those individuals whose salary
shortfalls are equal to or greater than the UW-L total salary shortfall shall
receive adjustments. Individuals shall receive whichever is less: the standard
adjustment or an adjustment that increases their salaries to the level of the
UW-L total salary shortfall. Individual salary shortfalls shall be determined by
comparison to the average CUPA salary for the individual's rank within the
individual's discipline. In cases where no CUPA data exists for a discipline at
UW-L, a closely related and similarly paid discipline shall be used to establish
a benchmark.

The discussion on this motion
to amend included the following comments/concerns.

It was noted that
just because someone is above the CUPA average does not mean that they are
not compressed.

There was concern that this would penalize people who had been in rank the
longest and also the meritorious people in rank.

It was noted that
the mechanics of this amendment could cause problems. The principles behind
this issue can be part of next year's discussion.

It was pointed out
that this amendment attempts to correct an inequity that is outside what
this proposal was intended to accomplish.

The Senate then returned to
the main motion.

M/S/P (by show of hands) to
approve the main motion as amended.

The Provost/Vice Chancellor
ended the meeting by commending Barry Clark and John Tillman for their efforts.
The senators gave them a round of applause in response.

34th Faculty Senate

Vol. 34, No. 10

February 17, 2000

VI.
Proposal from the PTS Committee to address salary compression between the ranks.

Barry Clark, Chair of the PTS
Committee, and John Tillman joined the Senate. The report from the PTS Committee
was available to senators electronically the afternoon before this meeting.
Chair Bange began the discussion with some comments on the history and facts
relating to the proposal. He indicated that UW-System worked hard for nearly a
year and a half to secure as much of a raise as possible. The State of Wisconsin
is giving most of its employees a 2-2 1/2% raise while we are getting a 5.2%
raise. The key component in demonstrating the need for this raise rests on peer
comparison nationwide at the rank of full professor. The Chair indicated that
although it is not written, there are clear expectations by the legislature, the
Board of Regents and System that part of the increase will be used to address
issues including compression. In addition, for the first time, the Chancellor
has been given full discretion over 1/2% of the pay plan increase. A year ago,
the PTS Committee brought a package to address salary compression to the Senate.
The Senate approved this package. The proposal would use the entire 1/3 of the
pay package available to address compression. The current promotion raises were
also added at this time. The Chair indicated that if the Senate fails to pass
anything this year, that plan would be implemented. The campus report on this
issue must be in by March 1st.

The Chair then turned the
floor over to Barry Clark. Barry indicated that John Tillman did a lot of work
on this proposal. The proposal is essentially the same as the initial report
given to the Senate at its December 2nd meeting with two minor changes. The
promotion raises have been indexed to increase at the same rate as the pay plan,
and these promotion raises would be effective beginning with those promoted this
semester, Spring '00.

Discussion began with a couple
of clarifications. It was noted that as written, the proposal would be used
beginning this year (FY 00) when in fact it should begin in FY 01 (Item 6 in the
report). It was also noted that the wording concerning the ineligibility of
faculty receiving the new promotion raises for compression adjustments should
suggest some end to this ineligibility. Barry indicated that the proposal calls
for a thorough review of the process, including this item, during the fall
semester of 2002. Finally, it was stated that the salary compression adjustments
would be given in equal dollar amounts, rather than percentage increases, to all
full professors.

The discussion on the floor
included the following comments/concerns.

The use of 25% of
the pay plan increase overly taxes the assistant and associate ranks and
contributes to future compression in those ranks. Several senators suggested
a need to reduce this percentage. It was noted that the Chancellor's 1/2% of
the plan already amounts to approximately 9% of the pay plan increase.

It makes sense to
use salary savings to address compression. Salary savings should be put back
into salaries. Chair Bange indicated that in the past, out of necessity,
dollars where moved from salaries into supplies and equipment. The
percentage of base dollars going into personnel has dropped from 92% to 86%.
It is time to stop this trend. It was suggested that perhaps using a
percentage of the salary savings makes more sense than a fixed amount since
we do not know how much salary savings will be available in the future. One
suggested percentage was 50%.

Ron Lostetter, Chief
Financial Officer, explained how salary savings are generated. He suggested
not limiting the additional source of funds to salary savings. Instead, we
could simply ask for an institutional contribution to the package from
whatever funds are available.

There was a concern that this proposal does nothing to address compression
problems created by the proposed raises in the bonuses at the associate and
professor levels. It was suggested that there should be a better way to
handle the distributing of funds. It was indicated that it is not possible
to address the problem on an individual basis. These cases need to be
handled within the college or department.

John Tillman provided the senators with data indicating the lifetime earnings
loss due to the 25% taken from the pay plan for five years and the lifetime
earnings gain from the promotion bonuses (based on a 2.5% increase in the
pay plan each year). The data shows a significant overall gain in earnings
with this new process.

Concern was expressed that certain colleges would be supplementing other
colleges when it comes to the use of salary savings. It was first noted that
salary savings does not belong to the colleges. Ron Lostetter then shared
some rough percentages of the total number of full professors and salary
savings in each college. In general, the colleges have roughly the same
percentage of the salary savings as they do full professors. The one
definite exception is the College of Business that has no visible salary
savings.

It was commented
that there have been no catch-up raises since 1988 and no significant pay
increases since 1989. For these reasons, the 5.2% raise over the next two
years is very precious. In addition, the $3000 and $5000 bonuses for
promotions create a real problem between recently promoted and newly
promoted faculty under this plan. Barry Clark pointed out that this problem
will be evened out at the full professor rank since the newly promoted are
not eligible for the compression increases. However, this is a problem at
the associate rank.

It was noted that
whatever plan we adopt must not overturn previous merit adjustments. If
someone has been promoted in the past, they are meritorious. Thus we have to
assume that all full professors deserve the compression adjustments. By
giving out equal dollar amounts, the relative salary structure within the
rank of full professor does not change.

A question was asked
concerning why longevity can't be factored in. It was noted that there is no
objective way to determine if there is compression based on years of
service. The CUPA data does not address this issue.

Due to the lateness of the
hour, Chair Bange suggested that we consider postponing the final resolution of
this issue until next week.

M/S/P (by show of hands) to
postpone the final resolution of this issue until February 24, 2000.